I have a challenge for those who oppose evolution. Find me a single Ph.D. qualified biologist who opposes evolution, who also happens to be an atheist. You won't. There are Ph. D. qualified biologists who oppose evolution who are also fundamentalists in one religion or another. None who lack religion will oppose evolution.

This clearly shows that opposition to evolution comes from religious committment, rather than science. Most religions preach the need for honesty. Leading people to believe something that is not true is a sin. So here is a second challenge to those who oppose evolution. Be honest. Do not tell lies. Tell us the source of your opposition. Come clean with the fact that your opposition to evolution comes from your religious beliefs, rather than from science.

Autolysis wrote:The link posted above made my head hurt while trying to skim through it. Youch.

There are two kinds of people who generally disagree with evolution whether it be Macro- or Micro-. Uninformed people and Bible/Koran/etc. literalists.

Within the science community, there is NO debate that evolution has occurred, and is still occurring. Without evolution, you don't have Biology at all, it would be reduced to Nature study.

Creationists actually embrace a form of evolution that has been referred to as 'super' evolution. It's pretty ironic. They need this 'super' evolution to explain the diversification of the various 'kinds' after Noah's mythological flood. With all the species on the planet today, it's pretty hard to keep Noah's ark from sinking without 'super' evolution. cdk007 has a vid about it:

In reality there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one. I will explain why in a bit. First the types of mutations:

1. Duplication or Amplification of a segment of DNA 2. Inversion of a segment of DNA 3. Deletion of a segment of DNA 4. Insertion of a segment of DNA 5. Transposition of a segment of DNA from one place to another. 6. Point Mutation of a single nucleotide.

The first five are interesting genetic processes. [...] But none of these processes can add any data to the genome, they just move data around. I must add another point here: some evolutionists place recombination in this list, but recombination is sexual mixing and once again cannot add any data to the genome. Recombination just takes the genome and mixes what is there. [...] The type of mutations called point mutations are the only genetic processes that can actually add information to the genome and that is why evolutionists have chosen point mutations as the mutational driver of evolution. We will hereafter call point mutations simply mutations to simplify the writing.

The tomato plant is another order of specified complexity because it is life and has life chemistry driving it. The DNA in the seed has all the information to create the plant and that process is a temporary entropy reversal as suggested above. It is not getting ‘around’ the topic that creationists say this, it is true.

But can we expect continuing energy increases in the tomato plants in succeeding generations. That is questionable at best. I assume the useable energy is the fruit of the plant, tomato. Tomatoes are highly hybridized plants and the seeds may not be fertile (that old loss of information when information is changed) but we can experiment with this idea. Take some seeds from the tomato plant and propagate them. Follow this down several generations and what you will end up with is a very sorry plant with very little fruit. Entropy rules over all. You will need to get hybridized seedlings or seeds to get those yummy tomatoes back and no you cannot get more energy every generation. That is a little exuberant misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

Any site claiming to disprove evolution using this kind of argument clearly demonstrates that:- They have no clue what they are talking about.- They are ready to make fools of themselves to disprove something they do not understand- They cannot be taken seriously.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)